Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 30, 2012 3:30pm-4:00pm PDT

3:30 pm
there is agreement? yes? ok, without objection. with regard to the remaining items, colleagues, my preference, rather than stripping it out and potentially adding it back in, what we can do is come on thursday, we can leave these items out until thursday and look at all of our priorities as a whole. from my point of view, the environmental review positions that are dedicated general fund department items or general fund projects, i think, is an important one. tins to be areas where we fall short when we talk about not delivering bond projects on time, all the delays, what it means to taxpayers when people do not see their projects come on line. a lot of that has to do with bottlenecks we see at various departments. it is important, as we're going forward, that we have the capacity to live for those projects. terms of being born of the planning area, i support what the department is planning to
3:31 pm
do, and i think there is a benefit to being able to hold two environmental plan is accountable for their workload. what we see is a lot of shifting. even before the sport, we will see a lot of private projects coming through that will also be utilizing city planning staff at a high cliff. it is important that we do leave some level of capacity at the department to do it complete our city projects. with regards to the two other areas in terms of legislative affairs component and the clerical commission staffing area, i am less certain about those areas. i would like the department to come back to share with us some specific details about the justification for an additional legislative assistant position, as well as a legislative affairs position, as well as the clerical component. i believe those are fee-based, in terms of the clerical, the commission secretary component?
3:32 pm
please follow up with us and let us know if that is truly general fund or not. colleagues, if we can, let's we got here is where there is disagreement and come back to them on thursday. would that be ok? do folks want to take action on any one of the particular items? supervisor wiener: if there are members of the committee that have asked for additional information, as the chair just did, it might be best to vote once we have the full information. that would be my desire. supervisor chu: supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: i, too, would like to have all the information before making a final vote. supervisor chu: on the three areas, at the environmental position, i know supervisor cohen has asked about the capacity within visitation valley to be able to do with areas where we are not covered them through our redevelopment reorganization. if you could follow up with the committee on where you
3:33 pm
anticipate those planners to be dedicated, with a direct part father or other items. supervisor wiener: maybe ask for clarification of supervisor colon's question period is the question about planning department's overall capacity to do with important issues in visitation valley or of these two specific positions? i do not interpret these positions as being dedicated to any part of the city but generally as public projects in the street parks bond happening in visitation valley and every other neighborhood in the city. i think it is an important question to clarify, what is overall staffing strategy for some of these very important projects in visitation valley? i am wondering if it is about that for these two positions. supervisor cohen: specific to the environment of planners. supervisor wiener: the question
3:34 pm
to the chair is whether these two positions will be devoted to visitation valley -- i am supportive of these positions, but i do not know that they should be devoted to one particular neighborhood as opposed to the planning department focusing on particular things, for example, visitation valley as a whole. supervisor chu: the way i am seeing things is there will be a number of different city needs, whether visitation valley or different capital planning projects, or something we would not have anticipated coming down the pipeline later on. i'm imagining there will be some level of capacity within the department to deal with visitation valley that may not be these two positions, but these positions could certainly flex to support visitation valley or delivering rec and park bonds, or dpw bonds, are the work we are asking for. what i would like the department to do is share with us, if you
3:35 pm
can come up by the end of today, so that we can have the information quickly, what is on your area of significant work you are anticipating to need to do work on, and how you envision these two positions helping that? >> the other possibility is to perhaps use the temporary salary money, which we agree to cut for visitation valley. supervisor wiener is correct, the original intent was for these two to be environmental positions, because of the great need in that department. general fund, we can flex how they are used, but that was the original intent. supervisor chu: thank you. given that, why don't we hold off on those three areas, environmental review, legislative affairs, and the commission, and look for the department to provide us with additional information today so we can have enough time to review before our thursday meeting. supervisor at avalos? supervisor avalos: i would actually prefer that we handle this today.
3:36 pm
if we need to wait to get more information today, i am willing to do that, but i would like to make a decision on these positions today. if there is discussion about wanting to put back to the department, supporting neighborhoods like visitation valley, that is not necessarily treated directly by these positions, i am willing to look that. but we have to make some decisions today. if we are going to be holding off on every policy discussion that we have four positions on whether they should go forward or not, that will not be a very effective way of going through our decisions that we have to make as a committee. i am willing to wait for more information today but i would rather make a decision today rather than holding out. supervisor chu: thank you. colleagues, i believe we would be taking a number of actions today. probably just a few outstanding items. if we can pass it over, we will come back on thursday. ok, thank you. we will see you with additional
3:37 pm
information today and then come back on thursday. thank you. our next department is the treasurer tax collector. i know jose needs to catch a flight before noon. >> jose cisneros, san francisco treasurer. i appreciate your ability to be flexible. we are in agreement with the agreed upon set of reductions that i believe the budget analyst is presenting to you today. supervisor chu: thank you. to the budget analyst with regard to the tax collector budget? >> no further comments unless the committee has any questions. supervisor chu: just to be clear, page 38, the department is agreement with the two and a $30,000 worth of cuts in addition to closing out projects, correct? >> correct. supervisor chu: any questions?
3:38 pm
supervisor kim? ? no questions, -- supervisor kim: no questions, but i have to walk out of your presentation last week. i think that is a great step, moving toward, for both the treasurer's office and for small business. i want to thank your office for making that a reality. >> thank you. we have been proud to take the lead on them but we have been working with a number of other city departments as well as supervisors. thank you for your leadership. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisors. given that there is agreement with the recommended cuts as well with the project closing out, do we have a motion to set the budget analyst recommendations and to close out those various projects? we have the motion. without objection. thank you very much. now let's go to the mta.
3:39 pm
colleagues, there are no action before us with the mta. we are not able to amend or change any of the budget line items. however, when the department came before us in may, there was news with regards to labor negotiations which led to a hole in the budget. the mta, i believe, has gone back to the board to discuss where the budget will be changing to make the department's budget whole. today is an update from mr. reiskin at about department's budget. >> good morning. like the city, we set our baseline budget back in the fall and made some basic assumptions about labor cost as well as our other costs. our pulmonary baseline budget that we presented to our board
3:40 pm
in -- preliminary baseline budget we presented to the board in november showed a shortfall which was made up of assumed labor increases. fast forward to the spring as we develop our budget, with the city, developed our labor negotiations strategy. we agreed with the city to negotiate literally side by side and negotiated at most tables took me. -- jointly. we did so with the same negotiating positions and reached more less in the end the same agreements that the city did. we did that collaborative lee along the way. the challenge for us is that we are required by charter to submit our budget to city hall by may 1, which is in advance of when the labor negotiations conclude. in order to meet that date, we need to back that up and get it to our board and had developed
3:41 pm
and advance of going to the board. by the beginning of april or mid march, developing our budget that will be approved, in order to get to city hall under the charter mandated timeline. so what we did was we it assumed in our budget basically our starting position of negotiations. doing otherwise would have compromised the negotiation that were under way as our budget was going to the mta board. what that meant in terms of budgetary impact, as i presented to you back in may, was an assumed $14.6 million of concessions spread over the two years. i do want to put into context, that our labor budget is on the order of half a billion dollars a year, so $14 million reduction on about $1 billion over the two years is relatively modest.
3:42 pm
instead of a $14.6 million concession, where we ended up was an increase in labor costs of under $3 million. $3 million relative to $1 billion two-year budget, less than one-half of 1%. that paralleled, for the most part, with the city agreed to with the unions, which is more or less a zero wage increase in the first year, and then some increases in the second year, staggered increases that, in most contracts, came to 1.75% increase. some of that was offset by reductions in premiums and other working changed conditions and a slight change in health care participation by employees. in all, on our billion dollar two-year labor budget, we are budgeting now for a $3 million increase over the two years,
3:43 pm
which i think, after the many years of concessions that the labor partners have brought to the table, is eminently reasonable. however, it did create a $70 million swing in our budget from that 14 assumed savings. what i brought to my board last week was the proposal to close that, which is really based on changes in revenue assumptions of three areas. the first is the general fund revenues, working with the mayor's budget office and comptroller's office, we have revenue assumptions. we are able to revise the time that the budget was passed. the general fund passed through revenues, we were able to project greater than we had originally. the parking tax payment was slightly less, so that offset some of that gain. that change in general fund revenues yielded about $6
3:44 pm
million of increased revenues over what we have included in the budget. the second change in revenue assumptions have to do with parking and traffic enforcement. we have undergone some management change and have been evaluating our over all parking and traffic enforcement. we have also been undergoing an audit by the comptroller's office that has looked at how we resources and deploy a parking control, traffic control throughout the city. based on that, determined that we did not have the resources, the staffing we needed, to adequately enforce the laws and regulations we are required to. therefore, included increased staffing, and as a result, a commensurate increase in revenues. not just from the increased staffing but from improvements, we believe, are to be made in how we deploy the officers as well as the efficiency of their
3:45 pm
work. the final piece was changing the assumption with regard to taxi revenues. we are adding if you enforcement positions to do with the increase in the number of illegal taxicabs and limousines operating in san francisco. we've also, as you know, are contemplating a change in our medallions sales and transfer process. while we have not concluded that, that will be going to the mta board in august. you're not making any presumptions about what direction that will go. just looking and what we had concluded in the two-year budget relative to would recent history has shown, we have probably underbudgeted on the revenue side. for those two reasons, under budgeting and increasing the number of enforcement positions, we were able to increase. those two together came to
3:46 pm
about $17 million. that was how we read balanced the budget. there was a number of other smaller technical things. some what cost neutral transfer from the police department. that was the big overview. happy to go into any detail or answer any questions. supervisor chu: on the parking and traffic and taxi revenues, which were two and three of how you closed the gap, how much were each of those with generally? >> 6.5 million over two years for parking and traffic, $4 million for a taxi. supervisor chu: supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: thanks for the presentation. two questions. first with 6.5 million with parking and traffic, it has been a narrative that has developed in the press and elsewhere, that that department, that mta saw they had this labor shortage
3:47 pm
because of inaccurate assumptions about labor costs. to make up for that, proposing to increase parking enforcement. could you comment on that? for example, the increase in parking enforcement, was this already planned? if so, why was that revenue not in the original budget? this is a narrative, as you know better than i, has been developing out there. it is important to explain to the public how this proceeded. >> thank you. it is a fair and good question. we have been looking at our parking control for a while now. recently, as i mentioned, we made a management change in the area. we recently had the benefit of some resources from the comptroller's office to look at
3:48 pm
how we manage our parking control officers and enforcement unit. that has been getting us to the conclusions that we got to in this revised budget. it did coincide and it was not a coincidence that it coincided with our need to close a gap. what is driving it is our needs to be able to enforce across the city. we hear, including through your office, concerns of adequate enforcement on residential permit parking areas. people pay for these permits and then they see we are not enforcing them. we get complaints about blocked driveways. we feel we have not have the resources to address them. it would have been better, had we had this work done an analysis complete and advance of our bringing the budget for the first time. we did not, but we took the opportunity to rebalance the budget, to bring these things
3:49 pm
together. no question, it helps to close the revenue gap, but most importantly, it will help us better manage the parking regulation that we are required to enforce. i do want to add, what we are not proposing here are any extended hours or higher rates. this is just about having the resources to enforce the regulations that are on the books. supervisor wiener: i think a lot of people support improved parking management. i raised this before when you came, around extended parking meters -- two things. first, in terms of parking management, it is important that we improve the meter situation, in terms of getting them all updated so that they accept
3:50 pm
credit cards, that sf park is integrated into these. i know that timing is chunky, in terms of implementation. you do not have everything perfectly at one time, but there is something a little bit off about increasing parking management, increasing enforcement, without already having rolled out the modernized parking meters. people still have to carry bags of quarters around. in many areas, you cannot reload remotely. we are not making it easy for people to pay their meter. ideally, parking would proceed with both problems. the other thing with the residential parking permit system, i think we do want to enforce that, at some of what we
3:51 pm
discussed last time. i personally think the president to parking program is just bad. it is not actually designed with parking management in mind. it is about a particular block about whether they want to be in or out of the system and then we have orphan blocks that are surrounded by residential parking zones that have nowhere to park because they only have their one block and if the spots are filled, probably with commuters, then they cannot park anywhere in their neighborhood because they are not even allowed to purchase a permit. the system, in my view, should be completely revamped comic if we really want to do this to the management system. it is good if we are going to be ticketing people who are parking to commute, that is fine, but particular the people who are not in a zone and surrounded by zones, i more than they will be getting an enormous amount of
3:52 pm
tickets because they literally have nowhere else to park if they do not >> if i may, those are great points. generally, i would say we are ahead of the game technologically in a lot of places. within a year and a half, we should have new meters in place. we have a lot of them in place now. we have some technology available such as pay by phone with the meter itself altered. a lot of the enforcement is not in the metered areas. to approve a residential parking permit, we do not have to wait for new leaders. one thing we have done well is make it easier for people to find and pay for parking. i do not think we want to be hesitant in enforcing the
3:53 pm
regulations because we are not fully modernized in that regard. in a lot of areas, we're far ahead. it is a point we're taking. we're trying to get the new meters out as quickly as possible. we've always rather get the money through the meter than through a ticket. we do not want to have to issue tickets. we want them to comply with parking regulations and feed the meter. we talked about rpp end yellowstone's last time. we are in the process of reviewing all of those other parking management tools. we have drafted a clear set of rules that we have sent out. we are undergoing review. we will be taking a broader look at rpp to see if the voluntary system makes sense.
3:54 pm
i agree, i do not think it does. supervisor wiener: about the $4 million in tax revenue, is that all from anticipated increased enforcement? >> we have budgeted only about $5 million per year for the taxi revenues in the upcoming budget. when we look at the current fiscal year, we're already at about $10 million. there are two pieces of the revenue increase. one is that we underbudgeted. i think five is lower than realistic. we are adding enforcement. we anticipate some level of revenues from that. that is much less direct revenue. it is much more difficult to predict.
3:55 pm
we're not anticipating a huge amount from that. more enforcement will hopefully improve taxi service and generate revenues. supervisor wiener: you may recall last year of petition came to the board that would have dramatically increased the fines. the board did not decline to do that. i have advocated not to do it. i think the only reason these uncommitted cabs exist is because of the system. i want to commend you for moving forward and putting additional caps on the street. i want to make sure it stays on track. they exist only because we do not have enough cabs. >> hopefully we will have the medallion reform completed in august.
3:56 pm
we will have the necessity study that will inform the decision about the increase in taxicabs in the fall. those will be happening in the first half of the fiscal year as well as advances we're trying to make on centralized access. those are the key steps to improving taxi service. we want to make sure there are not folks out there operating and safely. we understand people driving without proper licenses in vehicles without proper inspections. we recognize they are filling a board with a boy. i commend people for entrepreneurialism. -- we recognize there filling a void. i commend people for entrepreneurialism, but we want to make sure they're safe. supervisor wiener: i agree with the crackdown. thank you. supervisor chu: for all of these items as well as the additional
3:57 pm
revenues, does it require your board take additional action? are you able to make these changes on your own? >> it is the latter. we will be submitting to the mayor's budget office and controller a technical adjustment of the budget within the 5% latitude. that does not require board action. i did bring it to my board as an informational item. i have no concerns expressed by the board. supervisor chu: generally your board is permissive of you being able to change things so long as it does not exceed the 5%? >> i cannot speak generally because i have not done this before with my board. i did bring this to the board. i walked through with more detail than i did today with the pluses and minuses were on the
3:58 pm
revenue and expenditure side. they were fine with that. i think it is beyond the legal obligation. they seemed comfortable with the rebalancing. to the extent there are significant changes, i will be reviewing budget expenditures and revenues monthly at a committee of the mta board and discussing any variances from the budget. supervisor chu: ok. any of the questions from colleagues? i want to thank you for your update. thank you. the office of economic and worse -- workforce development. >> good morning. i am the director of the office of economic and workforce development. i come before you today prepared to talk about three items. we are in agreement with the
3:59 pm
budget analyst office as to all issues except for the proposed loan fund we discussed last week. we are in disagreement. we're hoping to receive the full $2 million in loan fund allocation for the next fiscal year and get approvals for the additional $2 million for the next year. on the materials being handed out and on the slide, i have a detailed breakdown of our proposed spending. in 2011-2012, we have $500,000 for the revolving loan fund. there's another $500,000 on reserve which we propose to spend in the next fiscal year. as i